Outspoken by Whom?
-Dorothy Parker,
When told that she was very outspoken
How to Speak Persuasively Not Abrasively
Now that the preparation for holding crucial conversations has been done, the next step in mastering crucial conversation involves talking about one’s opinions. First, always start with the facts because it provides the groundwork for the pool of shared meaning to take place; these facts should also be the “the most persuasive” (138). You do this by “ begin[ing] your path with facts” in order to “earn the right to share your story” (140). Following that, proceed to tell your story, which is potentially offensive since it is the conclusions drawn from the facts. At this point in the conversation, one might have to stop and bring it back to safety. Thirdly, ask for others’ viewpoints. Encourage them to give their side of the story, including facts and stories (150). Here, it gets tricky because one can fall into a trap where he feels the need “to fight for the truth that [he’s] holding… where [he] employ[s] any number of dirty tricks” (150-151). To avoid this dire mistake, talk sensitively and do not try to make your story appear as a fact. Lastly, “invite opposing views” helps the other person feel safe and encourage them to engage in conversation with you(146). This environment helps prove that your goal was not to harm or win a conversation but to engage in a dialogue. To sum it up, STATE your path when you are about to hold a conversation.
One of the best ways to persuade others is with your ears- by listening to them.
-Dean Rusk
How to Listen When Others Blow Up or Clam Up
Stating one’s path is much easier than exploring others’ paths. This requires patience and the willingness to listen. How do you give people the sense of safety in a heated discussion? You must encourage the free flow of meaning and help others leave silence and violence behind. What does all of this require of you? Simply, this is the power to listen and give the opposing speaker a chance to state his path, which means backtracking the “person’s Path to Action to its origins” (174). This is also where mutual purpose and goals can be established, which in the earlier chapters. Begin tracing back by asking questions so that you can understand the other’s view. You can questions that are similar to these:
“What’s going on?”
“I’d really like to hear your opinion on this.”
“Please let me know if you see it differently”
“Don’t worry about my feelings, I really want to hear your thoughts”
Perceived safety can be increased when you mirror the other person by kindly recognizing their emotions. If the person appears angry or sad in their face or demeanor, respectively acknowledge the body signals and let them know that you notice these emotions. You can provide an environment of safety when you paraphrase parts of the story you heard to demonstrate not that you understand, but that you are letting them feel comfortable to voice their thoughts. If it appears that the other person is struggling to share and put down his guard, try priming. Guess at the possible thoughts that he or she might have and the feelings that they may be holding back.
Analysis:
There is not a more dividing conversation than the one involving abortion. Theological or politicall discussions for pro-life or pro-choice can be a touchy subject and has the potential to damage relationship. Yet these conversations are important to have because governments, doctors, and individuals all must abide by the same rule of law. Right now, abortion is protected under a woman's right to privacy, but past the first trimester each state has the ruling power to regulate it as it pleases. Although the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade provided a federal decision on this issue, it did not stop the ongoing battle between pro-life and pro-choice. In fact, the debate has become so heated that people are not able to listen to other side's viewpoint. That is because the pool of shared meaning has been broken. In the article When does Personhood begin?, "Dialogue between pro-life and pro-choice is almost non-existence" and "As a result, there are many questions that have never been resolved". Many of these unresolved questions have to do with when a person can be recognized as a human being with rights to life. Yet it is rather difficult to understand the Supreme Court's ruling Roe vs. Wade since there is no clear consensus as to when life begins. The problem here is not who is right, but rather what is each side arguing for and on what grounds. The art of crucial conversation can be applied to politics as well. Each side needs to earn the right to share by creating a space for healthy conversations.
A healthy space is one in which all are free to share and ask questions. This type of environment can be useful in the debate over abortion. Here, there is a need for both sides to avoid painting the other as the villain. It is not until we understand where we come from, our background, and what are the factors that dictate our decisions that we begin to the process of a healthy dialogue. First, safety must be restored from years of fighting. What needs to be realized is that we all have a mutual goal and that is to make the best decision for the woman, the life she may be caring inside, and the potential impact on society. There are so many people involved in this issue that every different viewpoint needs to be heard and given a place to state that side's path, fact and story. For example, if Roe was on the side of pro-choice and St. John Paul the 11 was for pro-life and they are having a conversation on this topic, then each should let the other clarify the facts and provide the story based on those facts. After which the other would listen attentively and ask questions to understand what is meant by women’s rights or the right to live. Here in this scenario, the conversation would be centered on mutual goal and respect. Since neither knows what is the right or wrong answer definitively speaking, there is no need to judge.
Another way of looking at this is from the perspective of Christ. What did Jesus do for the sinners, the persecuted, and for the outcasts? He humbled himself, carried the cross, and he did all this out of the Father's love for mankind. Jesus did not reject the Samaritan woman because she was not a Jew. The Samaritan's held a differing view than that of the Jewish people in those periods, but Jesus disregarded that and loved her; He took the time to tell her of the good news. Therefore, do not become like the Jewish community in the story who rejected those who were different from them. Christians shall love their neighbor even their neighbor holds an opposing viewpoint. For as Jesus, a rabbi, spoke with the Samaritan so shall a pro-life Christian speak to a pro-choice believer/non-believer. There will be a day when all sins are washed away and there will be no pain; that time will come with consummation. For now, we shall wait and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and love for every member of our community. If we act as a community, sharing our goods and ideas for a common goal, then the problems of today will be those of the past. Abortion is not just a case of women's rights or the right to life, but it the struggle to find love in a world so broken. It is important to create a space in which such issues can be discussed freely and without judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment